I explain herein why I bombed the Murrah Federal
Building in Oklahoma City. I explain this not for publicity, nor seeking to win
an argument of right or wrong. I explain so that the record is clear as to my
thinking and motivations in bombing a government installation.

I chose to bomb a federal building because such an action served more
purposes than other options. Foremost, the bombing was a retaliatory strike;
a counter attack, for the cumulative raids (and subsequent violence and
damage) that federal agents had participated in over the preceding years
(including, but not limited to, Waco.) From the formation of such units as the
FBI's "Hostage Rescue" and other assault teams amongst federal agencies
during the '80's; culminating in the Waco incident, federal actions grew
increasingly militaristic and violent, to the point where at Waco, our
government - like the Chinese - was deploying tanks against its own
citizens.

Knowledge of these multiple and ever-more aggressive raids across the
country constituted an identifiable pattern of conduct within and by the federal
government and amongst its various agencies. (see enclosed) For all intents
and purposes, federal agents had become "soldiers" (using military training,
tactics, techniques, equipment, language, dress, organization, and mindset)
and they were escalating their behavior. Therefore, this bombing was also
meant as a pre-emptive (or pro-active) strike against these forces and their
command and control centers within the federal building. When an
aggressor force continually launches attacks from a particular base of
operation, it is sound military strategy to take the fight to the enemy.

Additionally, borrowing a page from U.S. foreign policy, I decided to send a
message to a government that was becoming increasingly hostile, by
bombing a government building and the government employees within that
building who represent that government. Bombing the Murrah Federal
Building was morally and strategically equivalent to the U.S. hitting a
government building in Serbia, Iraq, or other nations. (see enclosed) Based
on observations of the policies of my own government, I viewed this action as
an acceptable option. From this perspective, what occurred in Oklahoma City
was no different than what Americans rain on the heads of others all the
time, and subsequently, my mindset was and is one of clinical detachment.
(The bombing of the Murrah building was not personal , no more than when
Air Force, Army, Navy, or Marine personnel bomb or launch cruise missiles
against government installations and their personnel.)

I hope that this clarification amply addresses your question.

Sincerely,

Timothy J. McVeigh

USP Terre Haute (IN)

Part II:

Q: What's the deal with you expressing interest in having your execution
televised?

A: First, it has nothing to do with seeking to be on camera - just look at how
few on-camera interviews I have done. Rather, it is to make a point: In the
U.S. we show, on television, re-enactments of real executions; mock-fictional
executions (in movies); and real executions from foreign countries - yet we
are ashamed to show our own justice system in action. It is ironic that we
show foreign executions, but are afraid to show identical domestic laws
being carried out.

Q: What were some other options considered besides bombing? Who would
you have targeted?

A: I waited two years from "Waco" for non-violent "checks and balances" built
into our system to correct the abuse of power we were seeing in federal
actions against citizens. The Executive; Legislative; and Judicial branches
not only concluded that the government did nothing wrong (leaving the door
open for "Waco" to happen again), they actually gave awards and bonus pay
to those agents involved, and conversely, jailed the survivors of the Waco
inferno after the jury wanted them set free.

Other "checks and balances" likewise proved futile: media awareness and
outcry (the major media failed in its role as overseer of government ally);
protest marches; letter campaigns; even small-budget video production; etc.
- all failed to correct the abuse

When violent action thus became an option, I considered, among other
things, a campaign of individual assassination, with "eligible" targets to
include: Federal Judge Walter Smith (Waco trial); Lon Horiuchi (FBI sniper at
Ruby Ridge); and Janet Reno (making her accept "full responsibility" in deed,
not just word).

Q: Further describe motivations for bombing, and why you chose the
bombing over other options.

A. Stephen Jones was appointed (in his own mind), not as a defense
attorney, but as an "independent prosecutor" representing Oklahoma state
(just prior to "representing" me, he worked as an advisor to the chief law
enforcement officer for the state of OK - Governor Frank Keating.) and its
interests; and secondary, looking out for his own interests (namely fame and
fortune).

Having this experience under my belt, I would recommend that a defendant
never trust his/her lawyer, for you can neither count on the attorney-client
privilege, nor the ethical integrity of a given attorney.

(I have also learned what "cronyism" means, in actual effect.)

Q: Regarding to comments by AG; Keating

A: Most of the insults are meritless and quite often absurd, so I don't pay
them much attention. Hitler? Absurd. (Geraldo Rivera uses this same
analogy, so Keating and Ashcroft are in good company!) Coward? This label
would make Orwell proud — it is double think at its finest. Collateral
Damage? As an American news junkie; a military man; and a Gulf War
veteran, where do they think I learned that? (It sure as hell wasn't Osama Bin
Laden!)

For all else, I would refer you to my enclosed paper "Hypocrisy", and to Ramzi
Yousef's statement to the court just prior to his sentencing. I filter all labels
and insults thusly.

Q: Lessons?

A: Many foreign nations and peoples hate Americans for the very reasons
most Americans loathe me. Think about that.

There are most likely many lessons in my story. Americans have the choice
to try to learn from me (which is why I cooperated with the authors
of American Terrorist), or they can choose to remain ignorant, and suffer the
consequences.